More Than One "god", More Than One Path...

[carrdero]

I believe that that the only difference between GOD and us is our (current) location, our purpose and the moments that each individual has existed compared to GOD. This seems to fulfill both requests of the OP. I do not know of any two entities that share the same exact belief system, the exact same life, the exact same future. This would entail that we are indeed our own religion (I already have dibbs on Patrickism) and that if we have any desire or interest to get to know or encourage a REALationship with GOD then we must individually initiate how much time, understanding and knowledge we would like to know about this BEing and determine the reliability of the source we are gathering this information from.

Edited July 23, 2007 by carrdero

[son_of_angels]

I feel sorry for you then, because that makes no sense. Also, see my above comment about the whole us being gods and there being one "big, bad God." It also seems to me that such a God would have to either will us to exist or not will us to exist. If he wills us to exist, then he must desire to not be God, and must also not be eternal, which begs the question of what happened to the god before him. Perhaps then he does not will us to exist as himself, because he was self-seeking enough to get rid of the eternal God before him, or some other predecessor. In any case, we are then left with the problem of how it matters that we are gods if God will never let us become completely like himself.

[SJP]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1337837' date='Jul 22 2007, 09:58 PM']I believe that that the only difference between GOD and us is our (current) location, our purpose and the moments that each individual has existed compared to GOD. This seems to fulfill both requests of the OP. I do not know of any two entities that share the same exact belief system, the exact same life, the exact same future. This would entail that we are indeed our own religion (I already have dibbs on Patrickism) and that if we have any desire or interest to get to know or encourage a REALationship with GOD then we must individually initiate how much time, understanding and knowledge we would like to know about this BEing and determine the reliability of the source we are gathering this information from.[/quote]

As Catholics, we share the exact same Faith.

What has led you to your conclusions about your beliefs?

[Socrates]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1337837' date='Jul 22 2007, 07:58 PM']I believe that that the only difference between GOD and us is our (current) location, our purpose and the moments that each individual has existed compared to GOD.[/quote]
Such a being would not be God, understood as the Source of All Being.

Your posts are pure nonsense. Atheism would be more logically consistant than this tripe.

[Aloysius]

wow, what a coincidence, I just said that exact same thing independently on another thread.

[carrdero]

[quote]sons_of_angels writes: I feel sorry for you then, because that makes no sense.[/quote]
You feel sorry for me because of your misunderstanding? That doesn’t make any sense.
[quote]sons_of_angels writes:Also, see my above comment about the whole us being gods and there being one "big, bad God."[/quote]
Also see my above comment (Post #59) about what the concepts of “Good and bad” entail to an eternal god?
[quote]sons_of_angels writes: It also seems to me that such a God would have to either will us to exist or not will us to exist.[/quote]
If GOD did will us to exist, is it to do His will (which one has to wonder what an omnipotent God would need this for) or is it to lovingly, respectfully give us the opportunity to exist, create and experience and will our own existence? Also does this respect extend to our physical existence if we choose one?
[quote]sons_of_angels writes: If he wills us to exist, then he must desire to not be God, and must also not be eternal, which begs the question of what happened to the god before him.[/quote]
I made need a little more clarification on this statement before I can answer it.
[quote]sons_of_angels writes: Perhaps then he does not will us to exist as himself, because he was self-seeking enough to get rid of the eternal God before him, or some other predecessor. In any case, we are then left with the problem of how it matters that we are gods if God will never let us become completely like himself.[/quote]I do not believe that GOD had any other god before Him nor do I believe that GOD wants us to be completely like Him but to be ourselves.

Edited July 23, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote name='SJP' post='1337912' date='Jul 22 2007, 09:25 PM']As Catholics, we share the exact same Faith.

What has led you to your conclusions about your beliefs?[/quote]
Not faith.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1337951' date='Jul 22 2007, 09:52 PM']Such a being would not be God, understood as the Source of All Being.[/quote]
And how would you perceive this as a problem for your current existence? For your eternal existence?
[quote]Socrates writes: Your posts are pure nonsense. Atheism would be more logically consistant than this tripe[/quote]
Why would this be considered nonsense? What part of "we are all gods" are you having difficulty with?

Edited July 23, 2007 by carrdero

[Socrates]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1338312' date='Jul 22 2007, 11:07 PM']And how would you perceive this as a problem for your current existence? For your eternal existence?[/quote]
I am not the cause of my own existance, and my existance is not eternal - I had a beginning, and am dependent on others - and ultimately God - for my being.

[quote]Why would this be considered nonsense? What part of "we are all gods" are you having difficulty with?[/quote]
Only God is the Source of all Being - "I AM WHO AM."

Anyone else who believes this of himself is incredibly deluded and foolish.

This has been explained plenty by Aloysius and others, yet you ignore it and persist with your same irrational foolishness. Since you are apparently immune to all reason, logic, and common sense, there is no point repeating this.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1339052' date='Jul 23 2007, 09:20 PM']I am not the cause of my own existance, and my existance is not eternal - I had a beginning, and am dependent on others - and ultimately God - for my being.
Only God is the Source of all Being - "I AM WHO AM."

Anyone else who believes this of himself is incredibly deluded and foolish.[/quote]

There is no such thing as a deluded or foolish belief as long as a possibility remains.

[quote]Socrates writes: This has been explained plenty by Aloysius and others, yet you ignore it and persist with your same irrational foolishness. Since you are apparently immune to all reason, logic, and common sense, there is no point repeating this.[/quote]

If you will notice that this discussion is still continuing with all members considering the information. It wouldn’t be to my benefit to drop the matter without a full evaluation and understanding of all the points being presented. I don’t tell you how to practice your faith, please don’t tell me how to reason and conclude my beliefs.

[Aloysius]

you define "god" utterly differently than we do. I have said it before, but you misunderstood me thinking I was referring to how you relate to god; I was rather referring to your definition of "god".

you define "god" as a very powerful being with creative power... or something along those lines. we define "god" as an ontological principal. your "god" I do not believe exists, I have no evidence or philosophical reason that such a random powerful being exists... this is why I call it "superstitious"; there's no reason, no evidence, no logical argument which would necessitate the existence of any such powerful being... or to justify any reason we would have such power or could attain such power... it's pure speculation, pure ridiculous assertion, pure excercise of the imaginative power of the human mind with no excercise of human logic. I deny the existence of any random powerful beings with creative power which exist within time and/or have any special qualities that would make them better or worse than an ordinary human being.

But I affirm an ontological principal which causes all (including time) to exist, and I call that "God" I believe it is the Supreme Source of all that is good, and since it created personality, I believe it is the source of perfect personality. I believe that it did not create imperfection, but rather created perfection, and part of that perfection was beings with free will; and that those beings with free will, necessary for a perfect world to exist, had to necessarily have the power to do evil... and the doing of evil resulted in imperfection. There is a logical necessity for this ontological principal, otherwise we must doubt our very existence (existence could be an illusion, right?) and I reject any intellectual system with doubts its own existence as irrelevent because if it is correct, then it was formulated by an imaginary mind and doesn't really exist or matter anyway.

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysious writes: you define "god" as a very powerful being with creative power... or something
along those lines.[/quote]

I define the GOD that I describe as purpose, existence and experience. How powerful or creative this BEing is, is not GOD’s claim to fame.

[quote]Aloysious writes: we define "god" as an ontological principal. your "god" I do not believe exists,[/quote]

As I mentioned previously, belief in the GOD that I describe is not necessary for this BEing or even our existence. You may also not be surprised that I am highly suspicious of your God as well.

[quote]Aloysius writes: I have no evidence or philosophical reason that such a random powerful being exists... this is why I call it "superstitious"; there's no reason, no evidence, no logical argument which would necessitate the existence of any such powerful being... or to justify any reason we would have such power or could attain such power... it's pure speculation, pure ridiculous assertion, pure excercise of the imaginative power of the human mind with no excercise of human logic.[/quote]

Now see this is the part I don’t understand. You can firmly believe without evidence, reason, fact, sense or logic that Jesus performed miracles, expelled demons, encouraged baptisms, blessed Sacrements, offered blood atonements for “sins”, resurrected from the dead and yet you do not have the scope or the vision that any other individual could come close to attaining such lofty or purposeful goals for their own existence and out of the same mouth refer to the GOD that I describe as “superstitious”.

[quote]Aloysius writes; I deny the existence of any random powerful beings with creative power which exist within time and/or have any special qualities that would make them better or worse than an ordinary human being.[/quote]

These are not the theories that I am putting forward (I am thinking a more thorough in-depth understanding of Patrickism may be in order). I never described GOD as “telling” time.

[quote]Aloysius writes; But I affirm an ontological principal which causes all (including time) to exist, and I call that "God"[/quote]

And I am assured that you will hold to this faithfully.

[quote]Aloysius writes; I believe it is the Supreme Source of all that is good, and since it created personality, I believe it is the source of perfect personality.[/quote]

And I believe that dieties have no need for concepts such as good or bad unless punishing, judging and sentencing are part of their personalities, which really does not sound like much of an purposeful existence or an appealing REALationship for me to enter into. I believe that GOD may be perfect but that a desire for perfection had to be established and that this perfection had to be actively achieved. I believe that GOD’s beginnings were primordial, innocent, immature and vague. I believe that GOD evolved and grew in awareness.

[quote]Aloysius writes; I believe that it did not create imperfection, but rather created perfection, and part of that perfection was beings with free will; and that those beings with free will, necessary for a perfect world to exist, had to necessarily have the power to do evil... and the doing of evil resulted in imperfection.[/quote]

[quote]Aloysius writes in The Origin Of GOD thread?
I believe in God because it is the logical necessity that there be a basis to existence which is existence by nature and causes all other things to exist.[/quote]

You may have to clarify these two statements for me but keep in mind that selective creativism, redemption and atonement does not become your God, neither does making excuses for Him or humans just so you can fit and appease these faithful (hopeful) theories.

[quote]Aloysius writes: There is a logical necessity for this ontological principal, otherwise we must doubt our very existence (existence could be an illusion, right?) and I reject any intellectual system with doubts its own existence as irrelevent because if it is correct, then it was formulated by an imaginary mind and doesn't really exist or matter anyway.[/quote]

I am all for a purposeful existence whether that existence is spent in the spiritual or physical realm, with or without GOD.

It would also be interesting to compare your viewpoints on free will at some time.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1337837' date='Jul 22 2007, 08:58 PM']This would entail that we are indeed our own religion (I already have dibbs on Patrickism) and that if we have any desire or interest to get to know or encourage a REALationship with GOD then we must individually initiate how much time, understanding and knowledge we would like to know about this BEing and determine the reliability of the source we are gathering this information from.[/quote]
What is a reliable source? What makes it reliable?

[Aloysius]

I do not base my beleif in Jesus' miracles on pure logic, I base it on sound history. There's a difference, this is where Christianity's marriage between high philosphy and historical incarnation. Because I am convinced of the truth of the Christian Logic, and I see no contrary historical evidence to their take on the history of Jesus and His Church and see all historical evidence as confirming this, I can make the leap of faith to accept these historical truths as well. It's not random superstition, I did not pick some random historical figure and attribute to him divine powers; rather, I found that the teachings coming out of the Church He created were unparalleled in their elegance and logical consistenc, and that the Church He created is an unprecedented unparalleled human institution and that he has had the biggest impact on all of human history and because of all these things, I find the facts proposed about his life logically the most plausible; I come to a point of dichotemy: either this is correct, or nothing is correct. And that's a very logical point that I come to, and my presupposition that the world has meaning causes me to affirm the historicity of Christ's actions on earth. But I would like to focus here not on my historical beleifs, but on my philosophical beleifs about the ontology of creation and why there is a "God" and not a powerful being.

Do you see how the being you describe is subject to TIME and CHANGE, both categories of your human brain? What leads you to believethat God is subject to these categories of your experience?

What leads you to believe that there is even such a being as the god you describe? It seems like an arbitrary supposition, not necessitated by logic... the universe would make just as much sense; neigh, in fact it would make more sense, without this powerful being as you have not placed him as a logical principal but rather viewed him merely as some sort of lifeform. It is nothing better than me claiming that I know there are vulcans and klingons out there in space; it's just stories about other lifeforms.

but to us, God is the causation of the existence of everything, necessitated by logic. sure, Christianity itself is not necessitated by logic in the same way; if we wanted to get into that I would argue that it is necessitated by a mix of logic, good history, and optimism about human nature... but I don't want to get sidetracked there, I'd like to focus more on this philosophical nature of God.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1339835' date='Jul 24 2007, 02:56 PM']What is a reliable source? What makes it reliable?[/quote]
Some guy posting weird new-agey jargon on an internet message-board, of course.

It is reliable if it is non-judgemental, politically-correct, unbound by any western standards of linear thought and logic, and in conformity with the arbitrary and whimsical tenants of the hallowed cult of Patrickism, giving Carderro the warm, fuzzy feeling of BEing in a k(NOW)ing REALationship with his oW.n e-GO.

Edited July 25, 2007 by Socrates